dwelling-house, within sections 3 and 61 (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, although they were not structurally separated from the rest of the house of which they formed part, and although they had not been rated separately therefrom to all the rates in existence during the qualifying year; that the words of sections 3 and 61 (a) were satisfied, if the part of the house in respect of which the franchise is claimed has, during the whole of the qualifying twelve months, been occupied as a separate dwelling, and has been during that period separately rated, i. e., named in the rate as the subject-matter in respect of which its occupier has been separately rated, to all rates made during the qualifying year; and that, these conditions having been complied with in the present case, the respondent was entitled to be registered.

Held, by BRETT and HONEYMAN, JJ., that, as section 3, sub-sect. 2, requires that a dwelling-house should be occupied for the whole of the qualifying twelve months, and section 61 (a) defines a dwellinghouse (when not an entire house) to be a part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, and separately rated to the relief of the poor, it follows that such part of a house must be separately rated during the whole of the twelve months of occupation, and that, consequently, the respondent, not having been rated in respect of the premises occupied by him till November, 1872, was not entitled to be registered.

Held by BRETT, J., that the rooms were not occupied as a separate dwelling within section 61.

The opinion was also expressed by some members of the court, and apparently concurred in by all, that, as at the time of the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, there was no statute in

(a) The interpretation contained in section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, of "dwelling-house' is substituted for that contained in section 61 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867.

force in the respondent's parish, under which the owner of houses could be rated, the exception in section 7 did not apply: Boon v. Howard, L. R. 9 C. P. 277; 2 H. & C. 208; 43 L. J. C. P. 115; 30 L. T., N. S. 382; 22 W. R. 535.

Section 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, applies not only to cases where owner is liable by agreement with the overseers under section 3, or by order of vestry under section 4, but also to cases where he is liable by agreement with the occupier, to pay the rates. Held, that although the overseers had omitted H. from the rate book, and he had not claimed to be rated, his franchise was preserved by section 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41; for the operation of that section (a) was not restricted to cases where there had been an agreement in writing between the overseers and the owner to receive the rates from him under section 3, or an order of vestry for rating the owner instead of the occupier under section 4: Smith v. Seghill, L. R. 10 Q. B. 422, followed; Cross v. Alsop, L. R. 6 C. P. 315, ante, p. 399, distinguished: Barton v. Birmingham, 2 H. & C. 393; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 87; 39 L. T., N. S. 352.

The agreement in writing required by section 3 of Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the notice in writing required by section 4, subsection 2, held to be condition precedent to legality of allowances made under those clauses. Overseers held to have no power to waive performance of either of the conditions.

Held, that the allowance in excess of 15 per cent. was not one which the overseers were empowered to make, and, consequently, that the enactment in

(a) See note (a), ante, on p. 399.

section 7, that payment by the owner is to be deemed "payment of the full rate by the occupier," "notwithstanding any allowance or deduction which the overseers are empowered to make from the rate," did not preserve the occupier's franchise (a): Bennett v. Atkins, 2 H. & C. 430; L. R. 4 C. P. D. 80; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 95; 40 L. T., N. S. 66.

(a) It is now, however, enacted by section 2 of the Assessed Rates Act, 1879 (passed in consequence of this decision: see Davies on Registration, p. 356), that "where by way of commission or abatement or deduction under the principal Act (The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869), or purporting or assumed to be under the principal Act, an allowance or deduction has, before the passing of this Act, been or shall hereafter be actually made, the same shall, for the purpose of every qualification or franchise depending upon rating or upon payment of rates, be deemed to have been duly made in pursuance of every or any agreement, order, notice, or proceeding necessary for the validity thereof under the principal Act, and to have been and to be an allowance or deduction which the overseers were and are empowered to make from the rate under the principal Act; and no qualification or franchise depending upon rating or upon payment of rates shall be defeated by reason of such allowance or deduction not having been made in pursuance of an agreement in writing, order in writing, or notice in writing, or by reason of the want or insufficiency of any agreement, order, notice, or proceeding necessary for the validity thereof under the principal Act, or by reason of any informality or defect in the making thereof.

ASSESSED TAXES.

A quarter's house tax which, by virtue of 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 23, was payable on 20th December, 1851, was held to "have become payable" previously to the succeeding 5th January, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 (a), and 11 & 12 Vict. c. 90, although not demanded until after last-mentioned date.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER. The appellant claimed a borough vote, his claim being free from objection, except that he was a defaulter in payment of assessed taxes.

Under the Reform Act, 1832, section 27 (a), no person could be registered as a borough voter unless he had paid, on or before 20th July in the qualifying year, all assessed taxes which had become payable from him in respect of the qualifying premises previously to 6th April then next preceding.

By 11 & 12 Vict. c. 90, the 5th January was substituted for the 6th April.

By 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 23, assessed taxes were payable quarterly, viz., on 20th June, 20th September, 20th December, and 20th March.

The collectors were, by 48 Geo. III. c. 141, s. 1, directed to collect the assessed taxes half-yearly, within 21 days after 10th October and 5th April, but that Act provided, that nothing contained therein should be construed to alter the times when the duties were payable under previous Acts.

The appellant was returned as a defaulter under section 12 of 6 Vict. c. 18, for not having paid on or before 20th July, 182, the quarterly house tax of

(a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114.

20th December, 1851. This tax was not demanded of him until 10th April.

He paid it on 30th July.

Held, that the taxes which, by 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 23, were payable on 20th December, 1851, were taxes, which, by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 90, had become payable before the succeeding 5th January, although no demand for payment had been previously made, and therefore the appellant was not entitled to be registered: Ford v. Smedley, 12 C. B. 622; 2 Lutw. 203; 22. L. J. C. P. 35; 16 Jur. 1159; 20 L. T. 96; 1 W. R. 67.

Occupier of a "house" within section 27 (a) of Reform Act, 1832, who would under that section be disqualified by non-payment of inhabited house duty, is not the less disqualified because he occupies the ground floor as a "shop," and his qualification is so described in the list.

BOROUGH OF BRADFORD. The respondent was objected to on the ground that he had not paid inhabited house duty. The nature of his qualification was described in the list as a 66 shop."

He was a member of a firm of linendrapers, who occupied, as owners, business premises in Bradford. These premises consisted of a building, the ground floor of which was jointly occupied by the respondent and his partners as a shop; the upper stories were occupied as a dwelling-house by their servants, who resided there for the purpose of protecting the premises and attending to the business of the firm.

The shop was not structurally severed from the rest of the building.

The respondent and his partners had duly paid all the poor rates in respect of the premises, but had not paid the inhabited house duty, to which the premises were assessed.

(a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114.